NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/13/international/middleeast/13cnd-iraq.html
While the United Iraqi Alliance (the main Shi'ite party) won a majority, they fell short of the 50% needed to form their own government. The results may change slightly because of a three day window to enter challenges, but I doubt that significant changes will occur.

And the turnout was 58%, not the 72% the official claimed and that was touted around the news even though he refused to offer a total number of voters to back it up.


Which, I might add - is far more in line with what I was stating the day before the election, but of course everyone jumped down my throat the next day when the BS number came out.


Still, I am very glad that it went off without the bloodshed that had been promised by the insurgents, and I hope that the shi'ite dominance does not lead to the theocracy that I fear may take hold, and that all of the groups find ways to work together.

A small step in the right direction, with many more to go.

However, 57% was still very good. It's better than what the US has in most presidential elections.

bump

Ahhh, the first signs that the elections weren't as good as Bush&co told us...

Ahhh, the first signs that the elections weren't as good as Bush&co told us...
The Bush Administration said little about the elections before hand. What they did say seemed like guarded optimism. However, it were mostly the field commanders that talked about the election beforehand, and they were also cautiously optimistic. Even after the vote, they tried to downplay the turnout, just like they always try to downplay good news from Iraq.

I believe it was an Iraqi official that estimated 72% voter turnout, but I'm still impressed with a 58% turnout. I heard a report on the news this morning that some Sunni groups are wanting to know if they can vote and be involved now. The United Iraqi Alliance has pledged to include all groups in this initial governing body, and I think they probably will. It must be remembered, though, that this government is short-term. It is charged with creating a constitution by August 15. It then must be approved and ratified by the Iraqi people by October 15 followed by another election for a long-term governing body under the new constitution. The government that the Iraqi people choose may not have the same face as ours, but it will be a government that represents a majority of the people and will be answerable to all the people. As the elected government will have to depend heavily on the support of the western nations, I doubt that a theocracy would take hold.

Yeah, I'm pretty concerned. This shiite party seem to be dedicated theocrats. They think that the Qu'aran should be the only source for Iraq law.
As the elected government will have to depend heavily on the support of the western nations, I doubt that a theocracy would take hold.
Hey, it didn't stop Iran or Saudi Arabia! Iraq has oil and that's all that matters!
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/13/international/middleeast/13cnd-iraq.html
While the United Iraqi Alliance (the main Shi'ite party) won a majority, they fell short of the 50% needed to form their own government. The results may change slightly because of a three day window to enter challenges, but I doubt that significant changes will occur.
How did they win a majority, yet fall short of 50%?

How did they win a majority, yet fall short of 50%?
They won the majority of the votes, but not an outright majority.

How did they win a majority, yet fall short of 50%?

by the media being too mentally challenged to understand the difference between a plurality and a majority.

by the media being too mentally challenged to understand the difference between a plurality and a majority.
Well, that also leaves me mentally challenged.

Well, that also leaves me mentally challenged.

nah, probably just misinformed.

anyone seen the full results anywhere? the best i've seen so far is the wikipedia page on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_legislative_election%2C_2005

but that leaves off lots of stuff, and doesn't directly link to a source.

Well, that also leaves me mentally challenged.


think of a three-party system.

In an election one party gets 40%, one gets 32% the last 28%.

The party with 40% had the most votes and so wins the plurality, but not an outright majority of the votes.


This is the way it happens in many parts of the world, as there are really very few places with quite as entrenched a two-party system as in the US.

And the turnout was 58%, not the 72% the official claimed and that was touted around the news even though he refused to offer a total number of voters to back it up.


Which, I might add - is far more in line with what I was stating the day before the election, but of course everyone jumped down my throat the next day when the BS number came out.


Still, I am very glad that it went off without the bloodshed that had been promised by the insurgents, and I hope that the shi'ite dominance does not lead to the theocracy that I fear may take hold, and that all of the groups find ways to work together.

A small step in the right direction, with many more to go.


We jumped down you throat because you said that most Iraqis wouldn't vote. Unless you didn't know, 58% is most. You said something in the region of 30%.

Oh, and the Shi'ites will most likely not create a theocracy. They may have a bit of a religious motive in some of their moves, but I think they'd rather be democratic(unlike their neighbors).

think of a three-party system.

In an election one party gets 40%, one gets 32% the last 28%.

The party with 40% had the most votes and so wins the plurality, but not an outright majority of the votes.


This is the way it happens in many parts of the world, as there are really very few places with quite as entrenched a two-party system as in the US.
The results were:

http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1108300282812_2?hub=topstories

Shiite candidates received 4.075 million votes or about 48 per cent; while Kurds received 2.175 million or 26 per cent; and interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi's list received 1.168 million votes, or about 14 per cent, in the nation's first democratic vote in half a century.

What I can't understand is where the hell is the other 12% of the votes?

The results were:

http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1108300282812_2?hub=topstories

Shiite candidates received 4.075 million votes or about 48 per cent; while Kurds received 2.175 million or 26 per cent; and interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi's list received 1.168 million votes, or about 14 per cent, in the nation's first democratic vote in half a century.

What I can't understand is where the hell is the other 12% of the votes?

There were hundreds of Parties. They probably just got smaller numbers.

What I can't understand is where the hell is the other 12% of the votes?

a couple more lists also got seats, including the iraqi communist party, the turkmen front, and a couple of scary islamist groups. and 5.6% of the total vote was divide up between the 100+ lists that didn't make the cut.

ok, anyone happen to know how they are dealing with the remainder seats? by my estimate, the are about 18 seats not directly filled by straight %votes = %seats, given the cut off point i've heard.

We jumped down you throat because you said that most Iraqis wouldn't vote. Unless you didn't know, 58% is most. You said something in the region of 30%.

Oh, and the Shi'ites will most likely not create a theocracy. They may have a bit of a religious motive in some of their moves, but I think they'd rather be democratic(unlike their neighbors).

*ahem*?

I never stated a firm number, however I was pointing out that the President of Iraq - the day before the election - was predicting a low turnout (http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4063994), and that it looked like al Sadr's people were going to boycot as well (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/29/international/middleeast/29iraq.html?hp&ex=1107061200&en=af3334ab192c7aa6&ei=5094&partner=homepage)


and I also stated "I hope that they get a good turnout, but it seems as though the leadership on the ground is not very hopeful. "

And, as I mentioned the next day - I was pleased that those estimates had proven wrong.


Anyway, no sense going over old business. I just feel a need to correct it when people put forward a statement about one of my opinions that is incorrect.

And yes, 58% IS a majority, and we BOTH hope that theocracy does not take hold.

*ahem*?

I never stated a firm number, however I was pointing out that the President of Iraq - the day before the election - was predicting a low turnout (http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4063994), and that it looked like al Sadr's people were going to boycot as well (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/29/international/middleeast/29iraq.html?hp&ex=1107061200&en=af3334ab192c7aa6&ei=5094&partner=homepage)


and I also stated "I hope that they get a good turnout, but it seems as though the leadership on the ground is not very hopeful. "

And, as I mentioned the next day - I was pleased that those estimates had proven wrong.


Anyway, no sense going over old business. I just feel a need to correct it when people put forward a statement about one of my opinions that is incorrect.

And yes, 58% IS a majority, and we BOTH hope that theocracy does not take hold.

E-gads, we are agreeing on something(the theocracy thing)! The fabric of space and time have been ruptured! AHHHH!!!

*ahem*?

I never stated a firm number, however I was pointing out that the President of Iraq - the day before the election - was predicting a low turnout (http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4063994), and that it looked like al Sadr's people were going to boycot as well (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/29/international/middleeast/29iraq.html?hp&ex=1107061200&en=af3334ab192c7aa6&ei=5094&partner=homepage)


and I also stated "I hope that they get a good turnout, but it seems as though the leadership on the ground is not very hopeful. "

And, as I mentioned the next day - I was pleased that those estimates had proven wrong.


Anyway, no sense going over old business. I just feel a need to correct it when people put forward a statement about one of my opinions that is incorrect.

And yes, 58% IS a majority, and we BOTH hope that theocracy does not take hold.

But even if the UAI won an outright majority, they would have a very hard time establishing a theocracy. They are a coalition of three parties. The Supreme Concil for the Islamic Revolution is the one to worry about, though they have become less radical since Hussein fell. The other large party, the Dawa party, is led by the influential Dr. Ibrahim al-Jaafari. He's of course reliigious, but then again, so am I. I do not wish to turn America into a theocracy. Neither does he, and his rhetoric is consistent with a secular politician.

But even if the UAI won an outright majority, they would have a very hard time establishing a theocracy. They are a coalition of three parties. The Supreme Concil for the Islamic Revolution is the one to worry about, though they have become less radical since Hussein fell. The other large party, the Dawa party, is led by the influential Dr. Ibrahim al-Jaafari. He's of course reliigious, but then again, so am I. I do not wish to turn America into a theocracy. Neither does he, and his rhetoric is consistent with a secular politician.
One thing to keep in mind is that the Sunnis (about 20% of the population) are relatively unrepresented after this election. If Sistani's followers reach out to them, it could prove to be an interesting year ahead?

Sistani would like to remove the US troops but the strongest supporters of that move would obviously be the Sunnis.

However, 57% was still very good. It's better than what the US has in most presidential elections.

Wasn't that 57% out of registered voters and didn't less than half of Iraq's population register?

Wasn't that 57% out of registered voters and didn't less than half of Iraq's population register?

No that was 57% of Iraqis.

Daily Kos is kind of hit and miss as far as bias goes, but this blurb seems pretty air tight after reading through it once.

"The percentage of turnout supplied by Ayar came to 57% (happily rounded off by the press to 60%). This was based on what was described as 14 million potential voters divided by those 8 million who braved the potential bullets and bombs to go to the polls.

On Sunday, while hailing the millions going to the polls, I also raised questions about the 14 million eligible figure: was that registered voters, or all adults over 18, or what? Few on TV or in print seem to be quite sure, to this day.

It's a big difference. Since Sunday, countless TV talking heads, such as Chris Matthews, and print pundits have compared the Iraq turnout favorably to U.S. national elections, not seeming to understand that 80%-90% of our registered voters usually turn out. The problem in our country is that so few people bother to register, bringing our overall turnout numbers way down.

Howard Kurtz at least looked into the Iraqi numbers. In a Tuesday column, he observed that "the 14 million figure is the number of registered Iraqis, while turnout is usually calculated using the number of eligible voters. The number of adults in Iraq is probably closer to 18 million," which would lower the turnout figure to 45% (if, indeed, the 8 million number holds up).

To put it clearly: If say, for example, 50,000 residents of a city registered and 25,000 voted, that would seem like a very respectable 50% turnout, by one standard. But if the adult population of the city was 150,000, then the actual turnout of 16% would look quite different.

"Election officials concede they did not have a reliable baseline on which to calculate turnout," Kurtz concluded."

Edit: Source (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/3/134855/3139)